On Feb. 8, Statistics Canada reported that Calgary had knocked Ottawa off its long-held perch as Canada’s fourth-largest city. The same day, Ottawa city council approved a proposal for a new central library. Both signalled how this city has slipped down the status ladder of Canadian metropoles.

It was not the passionately debated decision to situate the new library west of Bronson that was problematic. Instead, the long-delayed decision to design and build an appropriate main library comes at a time when Calgary is already in the final stages of building a stunning new library designed by the internationally renowned Norwegian firm Snøhetta (with Canadian associated firm DIALOG).

At $254 million, Calgary’s library is larger than our more modest $99-million library (not including the $69-million National Archives component.) Ottawa, however, is at least playing catch-up with the new fourth-largest city.

This said, the crucial question now is how we will secure city-defining architecture enclosing the dynamic functional space now de rigueur for libraries. The Canadian bar is high given Calgary’s excellent building or Halifax’s smaller, $55-million library designed by Denmark’s Schmidt Hammer Lassen, (with Canadian associated firm Fowler Bauld & Mitchell). The latter has already been declared a “must see” by CNN and a finalist for the World Building of the Year award.

Buried in the Ottawa Public Library Board’s approved report are decisions on how to obtain design excellence. Based on a recommendation from Deloitte, use of a public private partnership (P3) was rejected. Instead, Council accepted a “traditional” design-bid-build process over a Design Build model (that could have included a P3).

In the latter, a developer/builder is selected who is the architect’s client, not the city. Conversely, in the former the city selects the architect, approves the design and then obtains fixed-price bids for the build.

The issue now is how the city and its federal government partner will proceed to select an architect and design. There are three basic approaches – but not all are of equal merit.

The best approach is a two-stage open international design competition. For Helsinki’s $114-million Central Library, now under construction, a whopping 544 design submissions from around the world led to a shortlist of six for further elaboration. Finland’s own ALA Architects subsequently got the nod. A similar process was used for the award-winning Canadian Human Rights Museum (2010) in Winnipeg, with 100 initial design submissions.

Less dynamic, the second approach involves first a call for “expressions of interest.” Responding architecture firms undergo a vetting of qualifications and past work. Shortlisted firms then prepare actual designs. This process was used for the Calgary Library, although unfortunately designs were not publicly released until after the final selection was made. Two significant drawbacks are a tendency to exclude creative younger firms and limited visual options so important to broad public engagement.

The final and weakest option mimics the first phase of option 2 but also forgoes actual designs in stage two. Instead, shortlisted firms simply undergo a more rigorous vetting. A design surfaces only after the winner is selected. This could be called the “pig-in-a-poke” process for achieving a desired cultural icon. It depends heavily on the ability of the selection committee to ferret out an architect able to produce a striking design that responds to a city’s and a site’s unique sense of place.

Given the outcome in Halifax, where a Danish firm with a demonstrable record for designing top-notch libraries was selected (despite a higher fee), excellence may be achieved. But the risks are high, including the loss of public engagement and interest in architecture that inevitably emerges in a full competitive design process.

Ottawa may never again recapture its placing as the nation’s fourth-largest city; but, with an exhilarating, open international competition for its central library, it can reignite its status as one of the country’s leading creative cities.

Rhys Philipsis an Ottawa architecture critic and associate editor of Building and Canadian Interiors.

This Week's Flyers

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.